QBD (Admin) (Haddon-Cave LJ, Holgate J)
1 May 2020
A magistrates’ court had been entitled to make a notification order under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.97 where an individual had been convicted of rape overseas. Where a person had committed a serious sexual offence so as to be subject to indefinite notification requirements, the continuation of such requirements for a minimum of 15 years did not constitute a disproportionate interference with his ECHR art.8 rights, despite the regime being automatic.
QBD (Admin) (Lane J)
18 March 2020
The court anonymised a requested person and her immediate family in an extradition judgment where the requested person’s daughter suffered from a serious condition such that identification would likely lead to harm to the family. However, a very good case had to be made for a person who had been convicted of a criminal offence abroad to avoid being named in English extradition proceedings.
QBD (Admin) (Nicol J)
25 February 2020
The mental condition of a man who claimed to have been the victim of trafficking was not such as to render his extradition to the Czech Republic oppressive or a disproportionate interference with his right to private or family life under ECHR art.8.
Ch D (NI) (Simpson J)
21 February 2020
The court granted a possession order in relation to a property which had been paid for using money derived from unlawful conduct. The order did not breach the defendants’ rights under ECHR art.8, art.14 or Protocol 1 art.1. However, it was appropriate to stay the enforcement of the order for a period of six months so that the defendants’ children could remain in the property whilst taking important exams.
QBD (Admin) (Holman J)
4 February 2020
An appeal against extradition to Poland was allowed on the basis of fresh evidence both as to the difficult life history of the appellant and his partner and the circumstances of their relationship since the extradition hearing. The offender had already undergone significant punishment and, in the exceptional circumstances of the case, the ECHR art.8 rights of the appellant and his partner outweighed the normally weighty public interest in extradition.
CA (Crim Div) (Fulford LJ, Cheema-Grubb J, Foster J)
28 January 2020
The Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.67(3), which protected against voyeurism in the form of the recording of another person doing a private act, was not limited to protecting the privacy of a complainant from secret filming by someone who was not present during the private act in question. A participant to certain activity could be guilty of a s.67(3) offence if they secretly recorded what was otherwise a lawful event in which they had participated.
CA (Crim Div) (Green LJ, Nicol J, Judge Walden-Smith)
3 December 2019
A restraining order that prohibited an offender from entering the town of Stevenage for 10 years was reasonable, necessary, and served the legitimate purpose of protecting the offender’s former partner from violence. Although restraining orders tended to focus upon specific roads or premises rather than whole towns, that did not mean that in an appropriate case a broader restriction might not be appropriate. The evaluation was always fact- and context-specific.
QBD (Admin) (Farbey J)
28 November 2019
A requested person’s extradition to Poland for fraud was disproportionate, oppressive due to the passage of time, and breached ECHR art.8. The district judge’s reasoning regarding the fact that the individual was not a fugitive had been unclear, he had erred in finding that the individual had previous convictions for fraud, and he had failed to give adequate weight to the fact that 19 years had passed since the offending.
QBD (Admin) (Stuart-Smith J)
21 November 2019
Fresh evidence submitted by a requested person did not support the conclusion that her two young children would be left homeless if she was extradited, but rather that her partner would be permitted to look after them. Accordingly, her extradition to Lithuania to face trial for the offence of possession with intent to supply class A drugs did not breach ECHR art.8.
CA (Civ Div) (Floyd LJ, Baker LJ, Green LJ)
21 November 2019
Although the principle that the welfare of the child was paramount did not apply to applications for an order for secure accommodation under the Children Act 1989 s.25, the court was not required to abdicate all responsibility for evaluating the impact of the proposed placement on the child’s welfare. The court was also obliged to consider whether the making of such an order was proportionate, that being one of the “relevant criteria” for deciding whether keeping a child in secure accommodation was justified. The court had to carry out its own evaluation of whether the order would safeguard and promote the child’s welfare, but the intensity of that evaluation would depend on the facts of the case.